Posted on 02 Dec 2009 at 7:10pm By GavinoSearch through any book on warfare, in any language and from any time period and nowhere will you find the strategy of preemptive military withdrawal. This brand new approach was unveiled to the world last night by President Barack Obama.
President George W. Bush was criticized for his policy of preemptive war when he asserted the right to take physical measures against any regime judged to pose a threat to the United States. Some expressed the concern that the United States could launch attacks with insufficient cause and that the strategy would develop into a pretext for war.
Obama’s approach is the polar opposite. The theory is that a military force can achieve its strategic objectives within a pre-announced timescale that is tied to a commitment to withdraw. Such an approach has never been tried before. Can this former community organizer with no military experience out-think centuries of military planners?
This new doctrine flies in the face of modern experience. It is well known that General Colin Powell, who supported Obama in his quest to become Commander-in-Chief, favors ‘overwhelming force’, which was applied to great effect during the first Gulf War. Donald Rumsfeld and General Tommy Franks, who directed the attack on Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq in 2003, favored faster and smaller forces.
The one thing that different military strategies have in common is that they all answer the fundamental question, ‘What is needed to win?’ President Obama has demurred from this approach by rejecting the strategy of his leading general in Afghanistan and taking three months to develop his own. Winning is not clearly defined. Instead, the strategy is based around politics and the timing of United States’ elections.
What is President Obama's objective in Afghanistan?
Obama’s political calculation is that preemptive withdrawal will act as a sop to his supporters, most of whom are actively anti-war. By setting out an exit strategy, the President hopes to blunt any public opposition to the military surge, which he has been compelled to run with since General McCrystal’s troop request became known. The White House had previously directed the general to request an additional 20,000 troops.
At the same time, preemptive withdrawal is calculated to serve Obama’s reelection prospects because it means that the fighting in Afghanistan will be over just in time for the 2012 presidential campaign. With his base back on board and energized, Obama will be in a strong position to win a second term.
But one thing that military campaigns have in common is that they rarely develop as originally planned. By signaling his plans to retreat, the President is undermining the effectiveness of the surge. Absent the perception that the United States forces are prepared to stay and get the job done, what incentive is there for tribal leaders, or for Pakistan, to work with them? And knowing the withdrawal plan, what steps will the Taliban take to make sure it is still strong when the drawdown begins?
The political fortunes of wartime leaders are inextricably linked to military successes. If the surge is not judged favorably, the President may find himself criticized from all sides. After all, a conflict doesn’t necessarily end when troops are withdrawn from the battlefield. There are also other potential problems ahead. How will the White House respond if General McCrystal subsequently asks for additional manpower? Or will the Pentagon be told that no more troops are available under any circumstances?
During the election campaign last year, we were told that Vice President Biden’s familiarity with foreign policy issues would balance Barack Obama’s lack of experience. But Biden’s suggestion to withdraw from Afghanistan now and fight the Taliban from distance was a non-starter. This makes the President look increasingly lonely in the foreign affairs arena. If the war goes awry, President Obama will look weak in 2012 compared to a President Palin or, for that matter, a President Hillary Clinton.
By finally announcing that 30,000 additional American troops will be sent to Afghanistan, President Obama has belatedly taken ownership of the conflict and the wider war on terrorism. The White House portrays the new strategy as thoughtful but the feeling will linger that President Obama is sacrificing military lives and progress in the war on terror for political expediency.
Whereas the Bush Doctrine was a ‘take no chances’ approach, Obama’s preemptive withdrawal carries considerable risks, including to the President’s own standing. Barack Obama is setting himself up either as a military genius or a fool.
.png&w=16&h=16&zc=T&q=95)
This strategy angers the left, the right and the middle doesn’t know what to make of it! Even though Congress is likely to approve the measure and fund it because it’s sending troops over, there must be serious questions asked about US objectives in Afghanistan. Does the president want to “win” and what does that mean? Whereas, Clinton used “triangulation” to unite the left and right sides of the aisle in support of his policies (which, of course, ticked off his base!), Obama is uniting everyone against him!
As others have said, he’s a legislator/community organizer, not a leader. It must have been very difficult for those West Pointers; they have to respect the office of the CINC, but not the man…
Well, it only makes sense that Obama would tell the world what he’s going to do first.. because that’s what he does.. he talks about what he’s going to do.. We have yet to see him actually DO anything he says he’s going to do so who knows what will actually happen.
Being as young an inexperienced as he is, he has no clue what to do with an inherited war. If I were him, I would’ve already ended the war (without warning) because that’s why my peoples had elected me… but what do I know? I should shut my mouth and pay my taxes! ha.
“President Obama promised to renew and reconstruct our nation. At a time when we are struggling to recover from a debilitating economic crisis, how can he justify the cost that sending yet more troops to Afghanistan would entail?”
Katrina vanden Heuvel , The Nation
Mrs. vanden Huevel clearly encapsulates the left’s concern with the war in Afghanistan – national security comes second to liberal objectives like universal healthcare and cap and trade. I have heard her talk about how LBJ’s domestic agenda was derailed by the Vietnam war and she’s afraid the same thing will happen to President Obama’s agenda.
There is certainly an argument that can be made that the War in Afghanistan has been mishandled but that is an argument for academics and historians, not our National Security team. National Security is our President’s number one priority and the threat presented by Al Qaeda and the Taliban is real and must be dealt with. What makes this war different from Vietnam and most every other “counter-insurgency” is that now that the Pakistani Government has begun to fight Al Qaeda and the Taliban, there is no sanctuary nation for the enemy to retreat to and regroup. This is a mission that can and must be accomplished.
Take a look at the decades long battle that the Columbian government fought against the narco-terrorist FARC, it has some striking similarities to our efforts in Afghanistan. For years the Columbian government tried to cede large portions of their country to the FARC in the hope they would leave the rest of the county alone but of course that wasn’t the case. So the Uribe government went to work to finally defeat the terrorists and now Columbia is a prosperous nation and its populace is safe.
The fly in the ointment for President Obama is his “preemptive withdrawal” (love that term) and as Gavino correctly points out war plans rarely go according to plan. We could achieve success faster (good news) or slower than the 18 month timetable the President has established. About this time next year is when the really tough decisions will need to be made regarding our withdrawal from the region.
As a side note I want to thank our staunch NATO allies who have courageously ponied up another 7,000 troops and this from a region with a larger population than the US. Thank goodness for article 5 of the NATO charter which states that an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all. I’m sure the US will be able to squeeze out 7,000 troops for the next European conflict!
Is this a record for a Nobel Peace Prize recipient – sending 30,000 troops into a conflict before the award has even been formally presented?! Ooops! Or perhaps Surge Lite doesn’t count somehow. After all, America has basically just surrendered.
Fred, I think surrender is the outcome of the mentality of most democrats.. By that I mean there is no goal for a democrat, only a timeline for spending… You know the old democrat saying, “we’ve come a long way, but we’ve got a long way to go”… It has worked for decades.
Dems inherited a war, taxpayers/voters/pigeons don’t want war so the dems have to get out of it somehow. Surrender is a great way to put it.
But why are we really fighting in the first place? The war is political, just like Desert storm and others before that. I’m not sure why the US is so worried about any country having nukes when the US is the only country that’s ever used them.
But I digress, it seems to me the only difference between the dems and the reps is how they want to spend my money.
@Carl. Please tell me of any war that is not political. Would FDR had stayed in office if he hadn’t urged Congress to declare war?
Good question, Joe.. I’m no history buff but I have yet to see fighting in my life that was worth the cost. My point is that I don’t think upper level politics are worth fighting/dying for.
And right now are we really fighting for freedom? I’m paying close to 50% of my income in taxes to have it redistributed to people my government has decided are more worthy than me to have it. And that figure is only going to go up.
Plus I’m paying for this war where we’re fighting who? to do what? Did someone in the middle east ask the US to come there and fix their problems? And did they want democracy.. and to be just like America? My guess is no.
Did FDR go to war for vague and fuzzy reasons with no exit strategy? No, it was a response to Pearl Harbor. But then he did he kill a lot of Japanese civilians, uninvolved with the war, with nuclear weapons. And no other country has done that.
Do we have it so right that we can go to other countries and ’set them straight’?